Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Earlier this month, you asked questions of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy executive producer Robbie Stamp. Robbie's been kind enough to answer more than the usual number of questions, and has provided much interesting information about the casting, Douglas Adams' influence, and more -- read on below for his answers.

Philosophy?
by c0d3h4x0r

In my opinion, what made Douglas Adams' H2G2 books special was their combination of light-hearted wacky humor with a quite serious undercurrent of bitter socio-philosophical commentary. The movie trailers look as if they capture the light-hearted wacky humor, but my big concern is that the movie will fail to capture and blend in Adams' commentary on society. And as others have pointed out, with Disney involved somehow in the making or distribution of the movie, I doubt the suits would have let much bitter or deep underlying social commentary into the film. Do you think you actually correctly identified, related to, and captured in film format the social commentary aspect of Adams' writing? Adams had a George Carlin-esque approach that was key: he pointed out the asinine flaws in mainstream human thinking and behavior, which are things we all notice but few dare to explicitly point out or belittle. To lose that would be an artistic shame.

Robbie Stamp: Firstly I want to say thanks for the opportunity to answer these questions but also to apologise for taking so long to get to them. We have the World Wide Premiere tonight and its all been a little busy.

To the questions!

What a great question to answer first - I am doing a lot of interviews at the moment and nobody has asked me this one before. (Update - since beginning my draft reply to this question and doing 68 interviews in a single day, I was asked this by one or two journalists on Sunday.) I think that much of the social commentary is kept in the Guide entries. I think that Douglas had a fascination with and horror of bureaucracy which runs through much of his writing. His views on organised religion are well known and the development of the Humma Kuvala sub-plot (which Douglas initiated) into a full blown look at the religion, which is based on the belief that we have all been sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arklesiezure, is based on those views. In Slartibartfast's conversation with Arthur on the Planet Factory Floor, we have some of my favourite lines in the movie about human thinking and behaviour, especially the line about "paranoia."

Casting?
by jhines0042

Which character was the hardest to Cast?

RS: I think we probably spent longest over the voice of the Guide itself and in the end came back to somebody who was one of the people Douglas himself had wanted, namely Stephen Fry.

How did Martin Freeman become Arthur Dent?
by timothy

This is true: two years ago I was watching "The Office" at a co-worker's house (I'd never watched a whole episode before), and realized that Martin Freeman struck me -- out of the blue - as exactly the way I would have expected a real-life Arthur Dent to look, gesture and sound, right down to the mooning for Dawn, and the look of frustrated annoyance that he occasionally beams at (or rather just past) Gareth. At the time (having no head for celebrity news), I didn't realize he'd been cast already as Arthur, and figured some other, well-meaning but inferior actor had been cast in that role. "It's too bad that they're already shooting 'Hitchhikers,'" I said, "because that guy *is* Arthur! Anyone else will pale in comparison to the flesh-and-blood Arthur who is playing Tim in this bizarre English-type sit-com!"

My better-informed co-worker let me in on the good news, and my casting prowess was confirmed (to me, anyhow). However, I'm curious how he came to the attention of the film's makers -- or was it vice versa? Was it because of his role in The Office, or was it his idea, or what? Was he already an Adams fan, or was this just happenstance?

RS: The Office was such a big hit in the UK that you couldn't really have missed Martin Freeman as Tim. I know that he was one of Garth's earliest ideas for casting. When I saw his audition tape and saw him deliver the line "It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays," I was sure we had found our Arthur - Garth and Nick of course knew that all along!

Why the decision to go with an almost totally American leading cast?
by Nothing Special

Other big book to movie adaptations (Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings) did outstanding with a fully British, and very mixed (respectively) cast. Was this by design to win over American audiences, or studio pressure, or just because they were the best auditioned actors these right roles? and also, were they the 1st choice for the roles. NOTE: I love Sam Rockwell, Mos Def and Zooey Deschanel, so these are not to be taken critically.

RS: I know that I have said this elsewhere but it's important, so it's worth repeating. Douglas himself is on record as saying that as far as he was concerned the only character who had to be British, indeed English, was Arthur Dent. As far as he was concerned everything else was up for grabs. Looking over his casting ideas over the very long period that the movie was in development he was always thinking of an American Zaphod and Ford and had a number of American actresses in mind for Trillian too. If this was OK by Douglas it was OK with us.

Working with Disney?
by LoadStar

It seemed that a lot of the reason that Hammer and Tongs was chosen to do this film was their unique style, and in a lot of ways, it works with Douglas Adams' creative vision. However, it's being distributed by Touchstone Pictures, a division of the Walt Disney Corporation, and the quirky nature of Hammer and Tongs doesn't seem like it'd mesh with the culture at Disney. Additionally, I'd imagine the "suits" would have a lot of problems with a faithful treatment of Adams' work. My question: how was the working relationship between the filmmakers and Disney (Touchstone)? Were there elements of the movie that were cut by Disney because they "just didn't get it," or were they pretty supportive of the decisions made by the filmmakers?

RS: I know that I would have been nervous about a big Studio ( though again remember that Douglas himself was always quite clear and determined about wanting a big Studio to make HHGG and it was he who signed the deal with Disney back in 1998). Once Disney and Spyglass had chosen Garth and Nick (who we found through Jay Roach via Spike Jonze) they were actually very consistent about allowing them to do what makes them different. The movie does not look like standard studio fare. At the outset, I was interested to see whether somehow the system would just gradually and almost reflexively squeeze the life out of N&G, thus negating the very creativity that the studio had embraced in the first place, but they didn't. I think that a lot of fans would be surprised to know just how much of a free hand we have been given in the making of this movie. I know how easy it is to see every decision to cut a scene as "studio" pressure but it was always much more to do with pacing and rhythm in the film itself.

Effect of the BBC television production?
by ninjagin

I was a big fan of the early '80s BBC TV show and enjoyed the characters in it. When I think of Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent, I think of those guys. As you were making the film, how much of an influence was the television production on the film, particularly with regard to the casting and portrayal of the characters but also with regard to production design?

RS: I think it would be honest to answer this question by saying "not very much." I think that the books and the radio series with their own "word pictures" were a much bigger influence. There are however some cameo appearances from one or two folks who featured in the TV series.

Marvin's appearance?
by Pengunea

What was the driving inspiration behind the look for the movie version of Marvin? Fans are all aware of the "brain the size of a planet" lament, but what's with that giant round head? A new play on words? For laffs? Because all the other MP3 players seem to be going with that look nowadays?

RS: Well the clue to this one is in your question - "brain the size of a planet", many of which are round and "giant round head!" We also quite liked that he was small enough to be looked down on by the other characters. The design of his eyes is taken straight from the book.

What held up the project for so long?
by joshdick

Douglas Adams has likened getting a movie made in Hollywood to "trying to grill a steak by having a succession of people coming into the room and breathing on it." Given the considerable success of his books and their large following, why wasn't a film adaptation released earlier? What hurdles had to be overcome?

RS: Ah! The big one. I'm going to give a very short answer to this - it was getting a script that worked as a movie that took the time.

Which changes were Adams' decisions?
by ygor

Consider: Every "incarnation" of tHHGttG has had variations such that no two are alike. Not including this one, Douglas Adams had a direct hand from start to finish of each version, so one cannot make remarks about accuracy or authenticity. While DNA started this one, he was taken from us before its completion. So, my question is: Which "divergences" in this version were done (under the guidance of) Douglas Adams and which (if any) were done by other folks after his passing. FWIW, I plan to ignore the critics and go see this film with a child-at-Christmas expectation. It should be great Eye Candy if nothing else.

RS: The script we shot was very much based on the last draft that Douglas wrote. I was also able to make available to Jay Roach and Karey Kirkpatrick many back story notes and ideas from Douglas' hard drive and Karey also had of course the book and the radio series to work with. All the substantive new ideas in the movie, Humma, the Point of View Gun and the "paddle slapping sequence" on Vogsphere are brand new Douglas ideas written especially for the movie by him. Karey came to be in awe of Douglas' genius and saw his role as primarily structural. Even the enhanced relationship between Arthur and Trillian (in which people seem to have detected the hand of the Studio) was something that Douglas was working on as well. As you yourself recognise in your question, Douglas was always up for reinventing HHGG in each of its different incarnations and he knew that working harder on some character development and some of the key relationships was an integral part of turning HHGG into a movie.

Choosing your sources?
by jd

There are many, many versions of "The Hitchiker's Guide" out there. There's the radio series, the books, the TV series, the computer game, the tea towel (!) and even a vinyl record version. In the end, how did you choose, from this range of sources, what sort of Hitch Hiker's Guide you actually wanted to make?

RS: The basis is very much the book but the towel has been a major influence as well.

Inspiration?
by Viking Coder

Peter Jackson reportedly said that he got the inspiration to work on Lord of the Rings when he finally realized that no one else was going to do it. What motivated you to get involved with Hitchhiker's? And secondly, what project would you love to see someone do?

RS: I wanted to stay with making the movie after Douglas died because I knew just how desperately Douglas wanted to see HHGG become a film. His family felt the same thing. I think we were all aware that in some ways the desire to see a film version of HHGG join the canon of works, over shadowed much of the latter part of Douglas' life. He was an enormously creative man ( there are dozens of brand new Douglas ideas for movies and TV especially, which are yet to see the light of day) but the film, always the film, seemed to prevent him from really getting stuck into them. I think that those closest to him, felt that if we could get the movie made, it would be a vindication of Douglas' belief in HHGG as a movie.

I'd like to see more Douglas ideas on screen!

BTW I once worked ( with the knowledge of the Tolkien Estate) on a fourteen part TV adaptation of Lord of the Rings, to be filmed in New Zealand with Tilda Swinton to play Galadriel! Then another version gained some momentum!

Who's the filn for?
by Tlosk

In making the film, was it ever a consideration to create a film that will appeal to people who have never read the books or heard the radio broadcasts? In making adaptations from literary works, especially ones with rich, stand alone universes, much time is spent on exposition of material that is well known to anyone who has read the works. While needed for people unfamiliar with the milieu, exposition rarely makes for riveting entertainment. But then again, so many people have read the books or heard the broadcasts, who actually makes the decision? Is it just left up to the screen adaptor?

RS: I know that Douglas wanted to reach out to new audiences with the movie ( we talked about it often) but we all felt that the best way of doing this was to be as true to the essence of the material as we could and hope that that would attract those new fans. The early signs are that people who don't know the material are loving the movie. I think that the problem of exposition would have been there whether you were making a movie solely for the existing fans or trying to reach out to new fans.

The decision was made initially by Douglas really as he had already cut down on the exposition hugely in his last script.

Rebutting the critics?
by pgpckt

Could you please respond to the review located here, in particular rebutting the parts that suggest the movie is poor in quality, is a travesty, or is otherwise unworthy of the name HHGTTG?

RS: Aha! I did a web chat recently and was asked this question and said that I was genuinely sad that Mike felt the way he did about the movie and I still feel that way. I am sure that he would much rather have written a positive review having loved the movie, but he clearly hasn't and he clearly didn't!

I am not going to rebut specific points ( to be honest I could not face reading the whole multi thousand word critique and the list of what we have left out) but did read the synopsis and that was pretty strong meat. If Mike's had been representative of all the fans I know who have seen the movie then I would be a very worried man. Indeed I would be looking for a hideaway somewhere very remote without any internet access for a few years. But thankfully of people who have actually seen the film, whose opinions I really respect, Mike has so far been a lone voice. Those closest to Douglas, his family, Ed Victor his long time friend and literary agent, many of his former colleagues, the actor who played the original Marvin, to name but a few, all loved the movie.

Many of those who have weighed in online in support of Mike, cannot have seen the movie. I see three kinds of responses to Mike:

Aaargh, confirms my worst fears, I am really nervous now

I am quite capable of making up my own mind thank you

a) I know Mike and don't always agree with him. b) I don't know this man but I don't think I agree with him!

My guess is that most fans will want to make up their own minds.

Director's Cut?
by njfuzzy

I am curious whether there is a plan for an extended or "director's cut" of this movie. We have heard a lot about scenes being in and out of various cuts, suggesting that many of the things long-time fans will miss in this movie may have been filmed. So, my joint questions: Are there plans in place to have an extended cut? and Are there any particular scenes that come to mind that you believe should be added back in?

RS: I think on this one you should look out for the DVD but behind your question may lie an assumption that I would like to take a look at. Garth is very happy with his final cut. He has not been forced by anybody to make cuts that he didn't want to make. There are some Guide Entries we created which didn't make the final cut and those will appear on the DVD ( along with some "fake" deleted scenes we shot specially for the DVD). Every time we shortened an entry it was to do with rhythm and pacing in that section of the movie, not with interference from "suits". There is maybe one line in there that I would love to see back but I'm not going to say which one, but I'm talking a line or two here, not whole scenes!

Follow-ups on the way?
by Turn-X Alphonse

Will the full trilogy (5 books) be made or is it being played by ear to see how the first goes?

RS: Let's see how much people enjoy this first one, but it's a big Galaxy out there....

"Don't Panic?"
by provolt

While making the movie, did you ever start to panic and then see copy of the guide and realize, "Oh yeah, DON'T PANIC"?

Informative, in some ways, like DNA's acceptance of merkins for Z an F, but they were aliens anyway, eh?

I thought the whole thing pretty well skirted what's on many minds. In a he's-answering-our-questions-let's-not-offend-him sort of way.

I didn't see any explanation for the two heads, either and would have liked to see the rationale. The idea, as I understand it rather grosses me out and I always thought of Z as a pretty funny character, not gross. Nothing says funny like having two heads up on your shoulders, getting knocked together.

Informative, in some ways, like DNA's acceptance of merkins for Z an F, but they were aliens anyway, eh?

That's why I didn't get the question about Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. The first is obviously set in England, but while Tolkien was British, I don't see any reason why Middle Earth residents should be more British than American, Australian or anything else. In fact, it makes perfect sense that different races would have different accents.

That's why I didn't get the question about Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. The first is obviously set in England, but while Tolkien was British, I don't see any reason why Middle Earth residents should be more British than American, Australian or anything else. In fact, it makes perfect sense that different races would have different accents.

Tolkien wrote LOTR to be an English mythology, because he felt that there wasn't one. (There was lots of Celtic stuff, but nothing that he felt was truly Englis

The scriptwriter interviewed himself (on the official site, I believe) and covered this detail if I recall correctly.

If my memory isn't completely gone*, the basic idea here was that a lot of the jokes on the radio and in the book were not meant to be seen. In other words, as soon as they put another head on Zaphod's shoulders, it just didn't look right, and couldn't be made to look right, and not bad in that campy-funny kind of way but just plain old-fashioned bad.

And if you think about it, "Love the third arm" is a joke that's a lot funnier when you hear it over the radio and have to try to imagine it in your head than it is if you actually see it on screen: "Why does that asshole have a plastic thing sticking out of his chest?" If you actually see it explicitly, it's just stupid. You might get a joke out of it if it's hidden (a la the "head inside a birdcage" thing) but apparently even that looked lame.

Maybe if a master were doing their makeup effects, they could get it right, and maybe not.

And apparently these things were all somewhat covered by Adams in his notes, although Adams appears to have second-guessed everything, so who knows if that means anything.

I have to agree with you here. I find it hard to imagine how a two-headed man could look "normal" (relatively speaking) without just looking... awkward. Some jokes were meant for books and radio, and some were meant for movies (For example, in one trailer, there was a claymation [I could be mistaken] sequence. While using the Improbability drive. Now, this would be rather hard to show in a book, wouldn't it?).

Warning: Book spoilers below!

Also, in Life, the Universe, and Everything, there's a humongous statue of Arthur, killing various forms of Agrajag. One of the arms, Arthur noticed, was doing something strange, but he couldn't understand what. Later, he realized it was conjuring up a pot of petunias into existence. Now, this joke was hilarious. But if anyone can actually think of a way to put this gag into a movie, I'll do everything I can to win you a Nobel Prize for being an utter genius.

That's pretty funny; as I read that in the book I thought over and over how to get something that brilliant into movie form. I would have Arthur nervously glance at the statue once in a while, and we can't really see what the arm is doing. Every once in a while, as he's ducking and dodging Agrajag, he sees the statue and a puzzled look crosses his face. Finally he runs around to the side of it to escape Agrajag and notices that there is a pot of petunias hanging ominously in the shadows above the gesturing

Well, I have to give you credit: That is a nice idea. But I'm not really sure that fits the image I saw. I saw something that is, in a sense, unseeable (Is that a word? Don't care.). Maybe I just can't picture the hand gesture of conjuring something from the great beyond, especially a pot of flowers. But, maybe everyone sees it a little bit differently.

Besides, this scene is from Life, the Universe, and Everything. So, let's set it aside for now (ignoring the fact that I was the one that brought it up). I

I just started reading the second book and it begins with a space attack that LOOKS like it is in the movie. I wonder if it overlaps a little bit and sets up a sequel. I can't wait to see this one. I hope it scores big.

What was the driving inspiration behind the look for the movie version of Marvin? Fans are all aware of the "brain the size of a planet" lament, but what's with that giant round head? A new play on words?...

RS: Well the clue to this one is in your question - "brain the size of a planet", many of which are round and "giant round head!"

I think marvin was talking about relative processing power, not lamenting having a big head. This movie has definately been dumbed down from the book tremendously. Worse is

I think marvin was talking about relative processing power, not lamenting having a big head. This movie has definately been dumbed down from the book tremendously. Worse is that this guy is on board, if not downright stupid himself.

I think Rickman's voice will help a lot, but Marvin looks rather cute, as in marketable, as in toy sales. Maybe the head is where the batteries are actually kept or heatsinks (maybe he's overclocked?)

When I met Douglas, years ago, I asked who was the inspiration for Ford (I

I think Marvin looks fantastic for a screwed-up Sirius Cybernetics Corporation robot. Something that was originally supposed to be "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun To Be With" but has turned out horribly wrong.

I just wish Marvin's voice had some mechanical undertones to it. Just hearing Rickman's voice in the trailer just sounds like Rickman being depressed.He just doesn't sound like a robot.Marvin's voice in the TV series and Radio series combined the voice with some robot-ish sound effects.

Maybe they've done this in the acutal film. The few times I've actually heard his voice in the trailers seemed like they were tacked on at the last minute...

Well, then an audience thinks that the robot is an exaggerator and complaining that he has a relatively large head. And that's as deep as it gets. It doesn't reinforce the metaphor, it changes the joke entriely.

I always thought the BCC miniseries got it right - a super human, mega powerful robot, and he looks like a vending machine.

Actually, I found that the BBC series Marvin undercut his personality - he attracted too much attention.

Marvin's depression partially stems from his boredom, and mostly from lack of recognition. He's completely aware that he's a necessary but ugly appliance that everyone can and will ignore when they're done with.

I understand that some people may not find this funny, but I found it spot-on. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but certainly the best visualization of the character I've seen. Combined with Alan Rickman's sardonic tone, I see real potential here.

By comparison, the hulking, oversize robot used in the TV series completely failed to relay a sense of Marvin's personality.

The movie might still suck, but the visuals I've seen so far have been excellent; it seems as if there's a lot of people looking for th

This is slashdot, so I know that I asking for this is a stretch, but go back to the book!
There is a specific description of Marvin in the first boot that describes him has having a large bulbous head.
The art/character designers got this one right...

Care to cite a page? I've got a text version (== searchable, of course), and I can't find any reference to Marvin's head.
Brain the size of a planet, yet, but no mention of "brain the shape of a planet."

If you can give a chapter, or page number, or episode of the radio series, or... well, anything, please elaborate.

There is no reference to the shape of Marvin's head in any prior DNA work.
That doesn't mean that it can't be spherical, of course. The only physical mentions of Marvin are about his legs - on

In the radio series Marvin is not a funny football like creature, the film makers have made a serious error by making him look like a cartoon character. His presence in the radio series always had an air of a grave metal humanoid, at one point in a telephone conversation from Milliways resturant at the end of the universe he is washing cars in the car park having arrived there by living through all history (with a pain in all the diodes down my left side).. and threatens and then actualy does put his head

Don't you give him none more of that Old Janx Spirit.No, don't you give him none more of that Old Janx Spirit.For his head will fly, his tounge will lie, his eyes will fry and he may die.Won't you pour him one more of that sinful Old Janx Spirit.

It looks like the filmmakers were as faithful to the book (or the ideas in the book) as possible. It genuinely seems that they tried their best. I would love to see a magical new classic come out of this, although I am not really sure of how well this will do. I personally don't know ANYTHING about this series, but will still see the movie in the theatre.

Here's my wishes of good luck to everyone that was involved and that your hard work shows up on screen. I'd like nothing more than more original work to be succesful in the film industry.

as a complete treatise on Absurdism [m-w.com], which I've not seen mentioned very often. Most people consider it to be a pleasant book, a light read, something funny to have to pass the time, but to me it's more like a book of lessons on reality. I personally think it affected me as much as the Tao Te Ching.

It's got a lot of philosophy woven in, no doubt, but has anyone ever seen/read about some more serious interpretations of the text?

I'm not a Philosopher or an English writing analyst, but I feel the same way as what you're describing. It's not just a light read, it's a lot more, even though if you read it lightly, it's very good also.

Agreed, I rank DA as an author to be respected as much as Robert Anton Wilson, Tim Leary, Antero Alli, Peter Carroll, RU Sirius, Rushkoff, Phillip Dick etc etc... of course, they all pale in comparison with Malaclypse The Younger and Lord Omar K. Ravenhurst.

Hail Eris and the sacred Thursday (The fifth day of the week)

All Hail The Law of Fives!

Ratatosk, Squirrel of DiscordChatterer of the Words of ErisMuncher of the ChaoAcornPOEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal and All Nite Erisian BBQ and Shrine

I'd be a little wary of this guy's answers. Everything that sounds like a bad idea in the conversion to the movie, he insists that Adams himself was workng on. This bascially alleviates and nullifies any possible criticism.

I read all the "Douglas approved" bits as reassurances more than evasions. If he had just said "I'm pretty sure it's great and you'll love it," it would have met with skepticism. This was, to me, intended to reassure the skeptics that they have attempted to stay very close to Adams's ideas, humor, and so on.

Or maybe Adams *were* working on all of those things, and people are just overly grumpy and pessimistic.:) HHGTTG is so broad that it's hard to NOT leave a vital part out, or change the way a major character looks or acts. I think everyone knows that but holds up some kind of false pretense that everything will be in... and then there's the people who have given up beforehand, too.

I'd be a little wary of this guy's answers. Everything that sounds like a bad idea in the conversion to the movie, he insists that Adams himself was workng on. This bascially alleviates and nullifies any possible criticism.

Rather than nullify criticism, he could have just been shifting the blame...

DNA's ideas were mostly brilliant, but he had his misses too. To his credit, he often admitted them himself.

For example, if you watch the "making of" segments on the BBC's TV Hitchhiker's DVD, Adams admit

This was a preview screening in London, with a Q&A session afterwards with Garth and Nick. I'm a long term fan of H2G2, having been brought up on the radio series by my parents and reading the books many times over. I think Douglas was an incredible author and I love all his books. I am not some sort of rabid fanboy, however. If I was this into LOTR, I would have gone into those movies with an open mind and enjoyed them for the fantastic things they were - inconsistencies be damned.

Here's what I though of the Hitchhiker's movie.

Casting:

Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect as Arthur. Yes, he plays it exactly the same way he plays Tim, but Tim is just like Arthur anyway, so it's all good. Mos Def makes a good Ford, just the right mix of deadpan, blasé and hoopiness. Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman are spot on as the voices of the Guide and Marvin. Bill Nighy is very good as Slartibardfast - he has the nervous pride and confusion down just right. However, Sam Rockwell just overdoes Zaphod. I always pictured Zaphod as a rather louche, laid-back who-gives-a-shit yeah-whynot kinda guy, but in the movie, he's some sort of coked-up rock idol, with no subtlety or connection with the other characters. Zooey Deschanel is just a bit of a blank as Trillian. I know the character didn't really have much depth in the first place, but I just didn't connect here. She shouldn't get it on with Arthur either, the whole point is that he never does...

FX:

All good. Obviously lots of money spent in the right places, with some great designs and original effects. Loved the Earth destruction sequence and every time the improbability drive was used, I laughed out loud. The Vogons are fantastic. Really good puppets and great design. Their bureaucratic nature shines (or is that dulls?) through perfectly.

That gets the classifiable stuff out of the way, now how was the actual movie as a whole? In one word: confused. Now, I know that an off-the-wall, episodic radio series does not translate particularly well into the traditional 3-act movie format, but I know how I would have done it. Act one, blow up the earth, bring the characters together. Act two, go on a wild hunt for Magrathea, get split up, find out about the ultimate question. Act three, go find the question, get stranded on prehistoric earth - cue 'What a Wonderful World' and roll credits.

What we get in the movie, however, is a messily edited foamy mess, that never seems to flow or build tension. The characters seem to be shaken about in a pot, randomly bumping into each other, without being given a chance to properly interact or develop. Some of the timing (so critical to good comedy) seems way off, punchlines arriving with a whimper. Some of the incidental music is especially innapropriate, with soaring bombastic orchestra scores getting in the way of the emotions you're supposed to be feeling. It's edited like a music video, never getting a chance to settle. The Humma Kavula character is entirely superfluous, in my opinion. If he'd been cut out, some of the other scenes could have been given a chance to breath.

It seems to me that it's a movie born out of conflict. It wants to be a quirky comedy and a spectacular fantasy at the same time. It kind of trips over it's shoelaces while trying to do both. The lady sitting next to me didn't know anything about H2G2 and her opinion was 'it's alright'. My girlfriend's opinion as a rabid foaming fan of H2G2 was 'they've raped my childhood!', but then she's analogous to the 'Balrogs do too have wings!' school of LOTR fandom. When the movie ended, it got polite applause (and only because the creators were in the room, I feel. I know we Brits aren't famous for making noise in the cinema, but this particular theatre has a reputation for rowdiness; people hollering at Neo to 'smack that guy!' etc.) Garth and Nick came on and answered some generic Qs at the end. They seemed really nice guys and they obviously love the source material. I just don't think

I'd like to concur with the above having seen a preview here. The scenes were often rather nice in themselves, but as a whole it didn't flow. A prime example is that I just don't remember why they visited the church with sneezing people. Nor why Humma Kavula took one of the heads. It just happened. One of the best laughs the audience got were the knitted characters (superbly unexpected!) - but I was sadly underwhelmed by the amount of comedy that came through language.

IIRC Douglas' pal Alan Kay was a Disney Fellow about the time this all started gelling. Disney is at its core, a company determined to bring otherwise impossible things to 'life' and amaze people often thru technology, invention and creativity. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine all those entities linking up to supply DNA with a company that could support his vision. Hell, they made Tron based on a story by Alan's wife Bonnie. Back in 1998 Disney was less seemingly evil entity. Despite what goes on in the courtrooms and boardrooms, you can still be middle aged being from an unregarded region of the galaxy, spend a day or three in Disney World and be very amazed at what humans can conjure up. In those terms, they're a fitting place to try and turn this visioninto a film, and in 72 hours, we'll see if it was a safe bet.

Disney is, at its core, a corporation. Its only mandate and its only desire is to earn money. If the management of Disney believed that they could make more money by burning every foot of film ever made by the company, they would.

We just got back from the Special Advance Screening of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I'll try not to leave any spoilers in my review.

The movie was excellent. I would say that it ranks 3rd of all the movies that have come out in the last twelve months.

The humour was great. In my opinion, it's much better if you've already read the book(s), heard the radio shows, or, to a lesser extent, seen the mini series. I've only seen the mini series, so a lot of the humor went over my head. (The alternative is that it really wasn't funny, and having read the book wont help at all, but I hope that's not the case.)

The plot and story were well adapted (as best I can tell from my exposure) to the movie format, but I missed several of the funny parts that didn't make it in. I could tell that things were dumbed down a bit, but it gave a greater feeling of satisfaction at the end. I really liked the way the movie dealt with the question of life, the universe, and everything.

Several aspects of the film were extreme, in the sense that you don't see them in regular movies. For example, most of the transitions between scenes were abrupt, disjointed, and jarring; but I think that's the effect they desired. In addition, the makeup, costumes, and set were totally over-the-top and ridiculous. But again, I think that was the point. Even with all that, I still felt immersed in the story.

The special effects were top shelf, especially the many sequences in the last quarter of the film. The Guide itself was well done. Marvin had excellent treatment, but did not get nearly enough screen time.

The portrayal of organized religion was just as I suspected: true to Douglas Adams' disdainful atheistic point of view. I think the introduction could have been better, but by the time the end of the movie came around, I somehow felt that it was fitting. The acting was good.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is definitely worth seeing for humour and a good story.

One joke from the book sums up why the movie will be dumbed down for the masses:

"It's unpleasantly like being drunk."
"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
"Go and ask a glass of water."

Personally, I think it's a shame that things like that more than likely either never made it into the movie or ended up on the cutting-room floor. If I'm wrong, I'll be pleasantly surprised and not ashamed at all. But even if it's not everything I hoped for, I'm sure I'll still enjoy it. At any rate, there's no poin

So the movie is more like fan fiction. People who loved the book, can't write anything like it for the life of them. So they figure they will make a movie. Dougy's assistance in the movie is that and nothing more, its not his movie its just his approval.

Doesn't mean someone someday will make Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy the movie. I mean really make it, but thats no reason to ignore this one. If this movie never existed then the movie never existed. This does not replace the b

I just finished Mostly Harmless about 4 weeks ago, so also note that not everyone here that read it read it back when it originally came out.

I, too, have high hopes for the movie. I've heard a lot of negative comments here, but, with all due respect, this IS/. which houses many geeks who hate pretty much anything they haven't seen/read/memorized years ago. Or so the trend appears.

I envy you...The first time really is the best (not that the other 100 times are bad mind you).

I got the 4 volume set as a way to "keep quiet" during a family vacation (I was maybe 12) to the west coast (from Wyoming). I ended up reading them all aloud, from somewhere around the part where the bypass plans were "On display" and where the mongolians thundered through the guy's mind because my family got sick of listening to me laugh hysterically and wondering what was wrong with me. It was a good trip, I

And apparently a different concept to the books as well, there are quite a few good descriptions of Zaphod's anatomy scattered about. There's a bit of 'So long and thanks for all the fish' which indicates that his heads can collide, see each other easily (which is why he had the lights off so they couldn't) and he is quite capable of sticking one under a pillow while the other does crosswords. However the clincher is when Arthur first meets Zaphod and his two head are described as 'right-hand head' and 'lef